If Dems Win - Good Luck

Discussion in 'Politics' started by red states rule, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Here is a great article which explains one area where Dems would hurt the average American worker



    Direction signals
    By Donald Lambro
    November 6, 2006


    Two things will likely happen if the Democrats regain control of Congress tomorrow: Federal social welfare spending will go up and the core of the Republican tax cuts will be repealed.
    We know this will happen because Democratic leaders have said so numerous times, in their campaign statements and in their election agenda.
    Since President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001, the Democrats have been calling for their repeal, repeatedly ridiculing them as "tax cuts for the rich" when the bulk of the provisions are aimed at those in the middle class and below. "I can't see Democrats opposing the rates that are being paid at the bottom two-thirds of the tax code," said Democrat Robert Reischauer, head of the liberal Urban Institute think tank.
    But Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, who would become the Democratic chairman of the powerful tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, told Bloomberg News not too long ago that he could not think of a single tax cut he would want to extend before they are due to expire by law in 2010.
    An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation shows us just what is at stake for middle-income families if the tax cuts were repealed: A family of four (with two children under the age of 17), taking the standard deduction on an income of $50,000 a year pays a federal income tax bill of $1,365.
    If the Bush tax cuts were never enacted, or if they were repealed, their tax bill would be $3,320. Not only does this family benefit from the lower income tax rates in Mr. Bush's cuts, but also from the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000. A family of four earning $75,000 a year presently has an income tax bill of $5,115. That bill would shoot up to $7,538 if Democrats had their way and the Bush tax cuts were never enacted.
    A worried Charlie Rangel late last month, as Republican congressional candidates pounded their opponents on the tax cut issue, put out a hasty statement denying that he had any intention of raising taxes on the middle class. "Democrats have a long history of supporting targeted relief for middle-income families," he said.
    Mr. Rangel said he would only "close tax shelters and eliminate benefits for companies that move jobs overseas." As for the across-the-board tax rate cuts Mr. Bush enacted, he simply dodged the question about what he would do, saying, my gosh, 2010 was "light years away from the debate before us." He hoped he would be able to provide middle-class relief, however, he told reporters.
    His evasiveness, following repeated claims by Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi of California that Democrats would raise taxes on upper income Americans, drew suspicion from Republican tax-cutters.
    "Charlie Rangel's a master politician, but when he talks about everything being on the table and tax cuts for the middle class, my eyes begin to widen," said former Rep. Jack Kemp, the architect of the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s.
    "When you start targeting tax cuts to a class of people, you are entering the arena of redistribution of wealth," Mr. Kemp told me.
    This is exactly what Mr. Rangel and Mrs. Pelosi have in mind. The "pay-go" rules they say they will institute would require that any tax cuts be offset by spending cuts or higher taxes on someone else. Thus their plan would call for raising taxes on the higher income brackets to finance lower rates elsewhere on the income scale.

    But it is unlikely that the Rangel-Pelosi Democrats will want to tamper with the lower 10 percent rate for workers in the bottom tax bracket or for those in the middle who now benefit from the Bush rate cuts. Their targets: raise the death tax, boost capital gains and dividend taxes on investors and hit upper income brackets harder.
    "Democrats are for taxing the super-rich, though it has yet to be defined where super-richdom begins," says Mr. Reischauer, the former Congressional Budget Office director.
    One tax hike scenario discussed in Democratic circles would push for tax hikes limited to six-figure incomes, corporate profits, investor gains and higher death taxes in exchange for an extension of Mr. Bush's other tax cuts. "They will try to find some way to raise taxes to finance their spending programs," former House Republican leader Dick Armey told me.
    As for spending, an examination of the Democrats' campaign agenda, titled "A New Direction For America," proposes to increase a broad range of social welfare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.
    One analysis by the National Taxpayers Union puts an annual price tag of some $80 billion on the Democrats spending wish list, but that is likely to be only a small part of their spending plans.
    A Senate cost analysis of Democratic spending amendments for fiscal 2006 and 2007 totals $95.2 billion and $74 billion respectively. One of the plans in their agenda is an income redistribution scheme aimed at lower- to median-income Americans that would match the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA account at a cost of nearly $40 billion over five years.
    So if you think federal taxes and spending are bad now, wait until the Democrats get a hold of the government's purse strings.

    Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/dlambrow.htm
     
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,886
    Thanks Received:
    2,071
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,776
    If Dems win their policies will quickly send our economy downwards. So maybe by two years people will realize it was a mistake to elect them and then boot them out.
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Have you noticed how today polls come out and across the board Republicans are gaining ground

    Also today, the Dow is up over 100 points

    Does that tell you anything?
     
  4. T-Bor
    Offline

    T-Bor Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    752
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +101
    Definition of Bias

    Bias: 1. When a point of view prevents impartial judgment on issues relating to the subject of that point of view. In a clinical trial, bias refers to effects that a conclusion that may be incorrect as, for example, when a researcher or patient knows what treatment is being given. To avoid bias, a blinded study may be done. 2. Deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such systematic deviation. Any trend in the collection, analysis, interpretation, publication, or review of data that can lead to conclusions that are systematically different from the truth.
     
  5. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572


    Thank you for admitting a liberal bias in the liberal media
     

Share This Page